The meta-analysis by Minneci and colleagues (1) on steroids for septic shock was interpreted too narrowly and may provide a misleading picture for practicing intensivists. I have 3 areas of concern.

First, the data analysis was retrospective, exploratory, and uncorrected for multiple comparisons (2). Should the conclusions, then, have been less definitive than those actually offered?

Second, Minneci and colleagues excluded the low-dose steroid study by Bennett and coworkers (3) from their low-dose steroid analysis. Although they provided a rationale for this exclusion, the study by Bennett and coworkers remained the second largest study in this analysis even after pediatric patients were excluded. Other quoted meta-analyses have not excluded this study. Thus, to provide a more detailed picture, sensitivity analyses are necessary and the authors should inform readers how exclusion or inclusion of the study by Bennett and coworkers would change results and conclusions.